> peterklutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So, where does mind stop and intellect start? Any hard criteria?

The mechanics of perception and discrimination that our intellect
would LIKE us to believe in goes like this: sensory input comes in
from the objective world, is registered by the mind and turned into
thoughts, and the intellect objectively evaluates that input, dis-
criminates, and makes intelligent decisions.

But the mechanics of perception and discrimination that Maharishi laid
out goes like this: first, we have a belief on the level of the heart,
the faint feeling level, deeper than the intellect.  That means that the
heart has a feeling - an attraction or repulsion - then the whole rest of
the individuality (the intellect, and its servants, the mind and senses)
go out and FIND evidence to support, to validate, that belief.  They ig-
nore evidence that doesn't support that belief - that evidence, that sen-
sory experience, that knowledge, that interpretation does not register.

So it turns out that we're not objective at all.  The intellect has been
lying, and puffing up its own importance, by pretending to be objective
and in charge, when really it's just a lackey for the heart.

And, if we think about it, this makes sense based on our own experiences.
When we love someone (or some place or some thing), we see the details
about them, and interpret them through our love.  They can do only good -
their flaws are not flaws.  But when they disappoint us and break up with
us, although we keep seeing the same details about them, we interpret
those through our anger.  Now we are astounded that we ever saw all that
goodness in them; now they can do no good.  Even what we originally saw
as their strengths are now seen as flaws.  It's the same exact person
(or place or thing) - but vastly different interpretation by our intel-
lect - based on changes in our underlying feeling.  That underlying feel-
ing boldly flavors the (apparently) objective discriminative work of the

When we have a deep personal belief, then even the strongest intellect
will ignore logic and even ingore direct experience that invalidates
that belief, and will use all of its skill to argue for the validity of
that belief, and to find evidence to support that belief.

There has been fascinating perceptual research that demonstrates this.
Show a bunch of people a photo of a large room filled with hundreds of
different objects and a number of people - and flash it in front of their
eyes for just a fraction of a second.  Then ask them to write down what
they saw.

Based on their beliefs and desires, they will have seen very different
things.  Same photo, but very different experiences.

If one person was very hungry, then their perceptual machinery uncon-
sciously sorts through everything in that fraction of a second and gloms
on to items related to eating in some way.  Hunger colors the "objecti-
vity" of their perception.

If another person had no need for food, but was feeling lonely, then their
perceptual machinery sees the people in the photo (but not the food ob-
jects).  They would swear that there was little if any food in that pic-
ture.  Again, their desire colors their perception.

If a third person had a deep belief (instead of a physical or emotional
need), say the belief that men are wonderful teachers, then they'll re-
member seeing the man in the photo, standing over a seated woman, with
his hand raised "to emphasize some point of knowledge he was lovingly

If a fourth person had a deep belief that men are abusive, then they'll
remember seeing that man in the photo, standing over a seated woman, with
his hand raised "to hit her".

"The intellect (and its servants, the mind and the senses) supports the


Another angle, that more directly responds to your question, Peter:

Katha Upanishad 3.10-11

Beyond the organs & objects of perception are the subjective senses.
Beyond the subjective senses is the mind.
Beyond the mind is intellect.
Beyond intellect is the individual self/ego/jiva/soul.
Beyond the self/ego/jiva is the transcendental unmanifest Self.
Beyond the transcendental unmanifest Self is the The Great (Brahman,
There is nothing beyond The Great.
That is the limit, the highest that may be reached, the end of all

In the subjective field of life:
1. The senses perceive.
2. The mind is subtler and receives those perceptions as thoughts.
3. The intellect is subtler yet and analyzes those thoughts.
    The intellect discriminates, compares, makes judgements.
4. The ego is subtler yet, the sense of individuality, the "owner"
    of the intellect, mind, and senses.

Maharishi explained it once from the opposite direction - the emergence
of the 8-fold nature of Prakriti, that inner subjective world which acts
as the link or gap between Knower and Known, between Atma and vishwa.

1. There is wholeness - one, quality-less, without distinction.

2. Since wholeness is whole, it contains everything.
    Therefore, the sense of "I" (ahamkar/ego) is there. [#1]

3. Instantaneously there must necessarily arise the opposite, the sense
    of "not-I".  You can't have one half of a pair of opposites without
    the other - they co-exist.
    If "I" is there, "not-I" is also there.
    That primal pair of opposites, that continuum from "I" to "not-I",
    is the intellect (buddhi). [#2]

4. The movement of awareness back and forth, from "I" to "not-I" and
    vice-versa, is the mind (manas). [#3]

5. The pathways along which that movement take place are the 5 senses -
    hearing, touch, sight, taste, smell. [#4,5,6,7,8]

6. And then comes the whole creation ("if anything ever was created"
    Maharishi said with a wink).

Maharishi said that if you pay close attention to the mechanics of how
you wake up from sleep to waking state, you will see this process un-
fold, step by step.  And that is true - layer by layer these build upon
each other, very quickly, as you transition from sleep to waking.


The great "mistake of the intellect" was to believe in itself, to be-
lieve that "I" and "not-I" are real, to believe that there is a relative
subject "in here" (I) and relative objects "out there" (not-I), and that
this subject "I" is NOT an object like all those others "out there", is
not just another wave on the ocean of the Self.

And the further mistake of the intellect was to believe that it could,
by standing in that illusion, and by using processes built on that il-
lusion, bring us back home to the Truth, to Wholeness.  And it convinces
us to trust it, to put it in charge of our evolution.

So the mistake of the intellect was to believe that "I" am real, to
"turn away from" the Self, to turn and face "outward", to disconnect
from the Self, to ignore the Self, to ignore Reality.  That's why it's
called "ignorance".


Let's switch gears and talk on a deeper, truer level:

Language is a funny thing.

When we talk about "the intellect" aren't we assuming that we're talking
about the intellect of an individual?  Aren't we assuming that there are
lots of separate people, with lots of separate individual intellects?
And aren't we then asking if MY intellect will eventually "come round"
and correct the mistakes that it's made?  So that "I" can get enlight-

Then we're talking about an intellect that's not real, because the indi-
vidual ego/ahamkar that "owns" that intellect is not real.  And a non-
real intellect, an illusion, can not cognize the Real, the Truth.

Then we're talking about an intellect that would have to "commit suicide",
that would have to come to the conclusion that it's not real, to correct
the mistakes that it's made.  Because the main mistake has been the belief
in its own reality as an independent entity.

As long as we are believing that "I have an intellect", then we are be-
lieving that "I am", and then we are believing in "I".  But the cosmic
joke is that there's no real "I" that gets enlightened.  Instead, it's
the very notion of the reality of "I" that gets dropped; That is en-
lightenment - letting go of the illusion that "I am individual", when
attention/awareness stops being absorbed in the 8-fold nature of Prak-
riti (individual localized ego, intellect, mind, senses) and shifts its
focus to the transcendental, Absolute, Self.

So "who" gets enlightened if "I" don't?
The Self stops pretending to be individual, bound, localized.
The Self wakes up to its Self.
And in that unbounded Self, the Self discovers it's own unbounded "struc-
ture" of cosmic ego, cosmic intellect, cosmic mind, cosmic senses.
By virtue of the Self being conscious, it is Cosmic Intellect, the One

So it turns out that there's actually ONLY ONE real intellect, the in-
tellect of The Knower.  There are no real individual intellects.




Michael Dean Goodman, Ph.D., D.D., Director
Boca Raton (Palm Beach County) Florida
561-350-3930 (messages received 24 hours a day) * [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Spiritual guide (ashtanga yoga/meditation, tantra, vedanta, ayur veda...)
Counselor * Author * Speaker/Educator
Satsang * Workshops & Retreats * Classes * Private Educational Sessions
Clients and programs throughout the United States, Europe, and India
Working in person or by phone
Free initial consultation to discuss your needs and goals

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to